Dan Majestic reports from Hollywood: Here’s a challenge for you: give me a title of any movie that actually gets better because of some steamy bedroom scene in it. (Or name any movie with Gwyneth Paltrow that was any good. Or with Adam Sandler. Or with Nicole Kidman. Or with Ben Stiller.)
Anyway, I dare you to name a single movie that improved after two people were shown rolling in bed, doing all that insincere moaning and groaning. I bet you won’t be able to name a single bloody one. And you know why? Because sex in films is introduced to lure complete idiots who get all excited over a bit of naked flesh and find it challenging to follow the plot but would watch on anyway if they know that there’ll be something resembling intercourse or full frontal nudity in it.
Remember Basic Instinct? Well, if you take out Sharon Stone showing off her fanny and the supposedly intense bedroom scenes, it would not get worse at all. It would be shorter, which would be an improvement, but it would lose absolutely nothing when it comes to the plot. Especially as the so-called ‘chemistry’ between Michael Douglas and Ms Stone is not even visible anywhere. Maybe they had something going outside the script, that I don’t know and don’t want to know about. But once the cameras started rolling, there was bad acting and nothing else.
Just how it happened in Sea Of Love with Al Pacino and Ellen Barkin. I mean, they tried really hard to show some passion, but because they are both short and odd-looking and are not that convincing as lovers, it was all a waste of screen time really. (Pacino as a lover boy sucks big time.)
And I can give you hundreds of examples of movies that didn’t benefit in any way from the steamy stuff in them. In fact, if you took out all the badly simulated sex scenes, the kissing and the groping, and the hugging and the nipple licking, there would be more time for some plot to develop. Yes, with a bit of intrigue thrown in. Who needs to watch two people imitating intercourse when it moves the story nowhere? Like that 9½ Weeks, that supposed erotic drama, with Mickey Rourke before he had a face of some sort and Kim Basinger – that would have benefited greatly if all that supposed passionate shagging had been replaced by a bit of a story. But no, it had to be endless sex, with all those fruits and vegetables from the fridge thrown in.
And another thing: if sex scenes in movies were cut to the bone – I’m not talking here about porn; porn is sacred for millions of sad pathetic wankers – scriptwriters would be forced to come up with proper storylines – to keep us interested. You know, develop the plot, invent some unusual situations, give us a bit more on the character side. They wouldn’t be able to just put in a five-minute ‘love scene’, as they call it, and then another one and another, throwing in some nudity – maybe even frontal – for no apparent reason, other than to make it easier for themselves. People want to see things happening on the screen. They can have a shag at home and look at full frontal nudity by standing in front of the mirror.
But there’s another side to all this insincere steaminess: how come we’re forced to see average-looking broads playing stunning beauties? This is becoming a major problem for Hollywood. I realise that some of the actresses are chosen because someone, somewhere pulled some strings and the studio or the director just couldn’t say ‘no’. I mean, you can’t really say ‘no’ to a mobster who is funding your film or to a short bald guy from some bank, who wants his hideous-looking daughter to play the part of a hot chick. But how could it be that in practically all the films we see women playing stunning beauties while not being stunning or beautiful in any respect. There have to be at least some cases of hot chicks slipping through this vicious net and getting a role of a, well, hot chick.
Sex and everything around it has no in place in mainstream movies. It’s a waste of time, pure and simple. Leave it to the porn industry to grapple with. Give us some gritty plots to chew on and some decent acting – at least from time to time.
– End –